Jews and Race: A Pre-Boasian Perspective, Part 2

Brenton Sanderson


The Zionist Elias Auerbach viewed Jewish intermarriage as not necessarily a problem providing the endogamous Jewish racial core population remained unpolluted by the taint of non-Jewish blood. The offspring of mixed marriages (Mischlinges) are, he noted, overwhelmingly lost to the Jewish community — leaving the “sacred chain” of Jewish heredity within that community intact. As Kevin MacDonald pointed out in A People that Shall Dwell Alone, this had the eugenic effect of selecting for high levels of ethnocentricity among the remnant Jewish community. Those with low levels of ethnocentricity (manifested in a propensity for intermarriage) were lost to the Jewish community — leaving a hyper-ethnocentric endogamous core behind. Accordingly, Auerbach writes that:

In Germany at present [1903], the rate of Jewish intermarriage is approximately one sixth of pure (rein) Jewish marriages. This number is so large that one would be forced to derive from it a total and imminent dissolution of German Jewry. A genuine intermixture, however, has only really taken place when the offspring of this intermarriage then introduce this foreign blood into the Jewish Volk. Now the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of these offspring of mixed marriages (Mischlinge) withdraw from Jewry both religiously and nationally, shutting themselves off thereby from any union through marriage with the Jewish nation (Stamme der Juden); thus, they remove themselves from the equation, for the most part, when it comes to [our analysis of] racial mixture. The Jewish human material (Menschenmaterial) that we are analyzing from an anthropological viewpoint and that is the foundation of the Jewish race in the progressive movement of history will consequently have altered very little and remains a homogeneous mass; they [the Jews] seldom lose elements to another people through dissolution. A careful and scrupulous authority on this issue, the statistician Arthur Ruppin, estimates the number of offspring of mixed marriages who remain within Jewry to be only 10 percent of all offspring produced by the mixture of Jews and non-Jews in Germany. As to actual mixing of blood, we would thus have to figure that at only 1/60 of the racial stock of German Jews. However, even this small, though nevertheless not infinitesimal, number is valid only for Germany and for a few other countries, in which altogether a very small percentage of the Jewish people (Stamm) live.

If one goes back just a few decades, the number of Jewish intermarriages declines precipitously in relation to the Jewish population overall. In Prussia the number of mixed marriage declines by half, if one goes back twenty years; for the Jewish population in general this occurs only when one goes back sixty years. Before this period, around the turn of the nineteenth century, the intermixing of the Jews [with other peoples] in Europe dwindles almost to the vanishing point. For the entirety of the Middle Ages — and for Jewish racial history, the term “Middle Ages” is valid up until the French Revolution — the number of intermarriages was so minute as to be negligible, the more so as barely any offspring of such marriages mingled their blood with that of Jews. The law of racial isolation of the Jews from the peoples around them in Europe held true for the entire Middle Ages. [Italics in the original] [i] 

Elias Auerbach


Maurice Fishberg, a Russian-Jewish professor of Medicine and anthropologist who emigrated to the United States in 1889, was far less sanguine than Auerbach about intermarriage, declaring it to be “the final result of the abjuration of nearly everything that has kept the Jews alive among the nations for centuries.” He argued that “Without the separative tenets of its religious practices, Judaism is inconceivable and in danger of extinction through absorption by the surrounding majority of other faiths.”[ii] Fishberg echoed the view of the leading Zionist newspaper in Germany, Die Welt, which in 1897 lamented that: “The greater their [the Jews] distance from the ghetto, the more they will lose their social, anthropological, and racial-hygienic particularities.”[iii] Describing in 1911 how the rate of Jewish intermarriage had significantly increased in Europe, Fishberg was careful to make it clear to his readers that: “It should also be understood that while pointing at the process of the assimilation of the Jews, we by no means advocate their absorption by the surrounding people of different faiths. We do not find it important for the remnants of Israel, or of those around them, that Jewry should commit race suicide.”[iv]

Fishberg was sympathetic to the view of the Zionists who believed that only in their own home, in Palestine, would Jews “be in a position to save the remnants of Israel.”[v] He notes that

to the Zionists, the Jews are a distinct non-European race which has preserved itself in its original purity in spite of the Jews’ wanderings all over the globe. They [the Zionists] hold that the Jews can never merge with the European races and are bound to remain distinct from their Christian and Mohammedan neighbors. The Jewish problem can therefore not be solved by emancipation, as is evident in Western Europe, where they still have troubles after one hundred years of freedom and political equality. Nor will emigration solve the problem of the Jews in countries where they suffer from political oppression. “Like the previous migration of Jews, it has produced fresh trouble,” says the Zionists in an “Official Statement to the Christian World [1907].” “These large numbers of poor Jews, are, at best, not welcome in the places to which they migrate. Their immigration is not that merely of an alien people who, whatever temporary inconvenience may be caused by their arrival, will soon merge in the general population of their new home. The immigration of Jews is different. They form or augment a body differentiated from the general population.” They object to assimilation. “With whom is the Jew of Eastern Europe to assimilate if he is to assimilate at all? Clearly not with the Russian muzhik or the Galician or Polish peasant. But this is a proposal that a superior race shall be absorbed by a greatly inferior, a stronger by a weaker, a sober by a particularly unsober one, and is altogether contrary to the course of race absorption. The Jew has no mean opinion of the status of his race in the world. Purer than most, it is one of the oldest; its preservation is part, a great part, of his religious belief. He does not readily yield to it even to advance civilization.[vi]

Nevertheless, Fishberg realized that the very existence of Zionism effectively confirmed the view of those who saw the Jews and an alien and hostile presence in Europe. This alien and hostile presence created a “Jewish problem” that directly gave rise to the “Jewish question” of how the Jewish problem should be solved. He writes:

On the one hand we have those Jews who take great pride in the purity of their breed, and, on the other, the people among whom they live who see a peculiar peril in the prospect of indefinitely harboring an alien race which is not likely to mix with the general population. This apprehension is confirmed by the Jewish nationalists, who look for repatriation to Palestine, or some other territory, thus corroborating the opinion that they are aliens in Europe, encamped for the time being, and waiting for an opportunity to retreat to their natural home in Asia.[vii]


Agreeing with most European anthropologists of the time, the Austrian-Jewish anthropologist and physician Ignaz Zollschan believed that race mixing was a bad idea which would inevitably lead to the degeneration of the superior racial party to the admixture. He cited historical examples to bolster his position, noting how 

the observations made in countries which have a population of half-breeds have pointed to the unfavorable effect of crossing. … We also know very well the wretched conditions of Central and South America, which are inhabited by half-breeds whose cultural stagnation stands in striking contrast to the rapid and ambitious development of the United States and Canada. It is certain that the conditions in Central and South America must, to some extent, be considered as a result of race crossing. It is true also in North America [that] the population arose from a blending of various nationalities. But here it was chiefly Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Dutchmen, and Germans; that is to say, nations that were closely related to one another, who were amalgamated; whereas in South America it was Spaniards, Indians, Negroes, and Mongolians who formed affinities. Colonization in newly discovered countries has always succeeded in those places where, like in North America, the conquering nations have avoided crossing [with the indigenous peoples]. In Brazil, on the other hand, there rules an indescribable mixed type whose bodily, intellectual, and moral energy is exceedingly enfeebled. The natives of South Africa have a proverb: ‘God created the white man, God created the black man, but the devil created the mulatto.’[viii]

Based on these and many other examples, Zollschan concludes that “all investigations thus point to the ennobling influences of racial purity, and the destructive effects of racial chaos.”[ix] He was also eager to point out that “We have proved by our investigations that the Jews have racial purity, and that an extraordinarily high racial value falls to their share.”[x] Accordingly, Jewish intermarriage, as well as being the negation of the essence of Judaism, is likely to diminish the high racial value that he ascribed to the Jews. Alfred Nossig shared this view and noted that

numerous generations of thinkers and communal leaders have bred [gezüchtet] a [Jewish] Volk characterized by pure blood, not poisoned by venereal disease or alcohol; a Volk that has a marked sense of family, a deeply rooted habituation to the virtuous life, an unusual intellectual dexterity, and an ideal spirituality. Therefore, it was self-evidently necessary to establish strict guidelines to protect these foremost ethical treasures from annihilation through intermixture with less carefully bred races. The prohibition on intermarriage ensured that the primary component in racial formation, heredity, could operate at the height of its potential and power; not only did the positive qualities referred to above get passed on undiminished from generation to generation, but — thanks to endogamy, or inbreeding — they were constantly increased. That is what it took for the Volk that Ibsen called “the nobility of mankind” to emerge.[xi]

On the other hand, Jewish race-mixing reverses, and ultimately extinguishes, the genetic fruits of centuries of eugenic practices that have forged the supposedly superior qualities of the Jewish people. In an article entitled Successes of the Jews in Capitalistic Enterprise, Arthur Ruppin (1913) maintained that the anti-Semitic environment of medieval Europe created selection pressures that honed the “formidable” intellectual resources of the Jews. He insisted that “the continual persecutions and restrictions acted as a sort of natural selection by which the less cunning and resourceful Jews were removed, and only the very cleverest – those who could extricate themselves from the greatest difficulties – were able to survive.”[xii] Ruppin compares the Diaspora Jew favorably with the typical German Christian:

In the struggle for life, besides intellectual gifts, the industry, versatility, and powers of adaptation of the Jew stand him in good stead. The Jew does not despair if one of his enterprises fails; he begins straight away with another. If he should be altogether unsuccessful in one calling, he is ready at once to take up another. In this he is totally unlike the German Christian, for example, who is slow to change his vocation, but similar to the North American, who also changes his profession without the slightest hesitation. The adaptability of the Jew is shown also in another direction; he changes his manner of living according to circumstances, without in the least being upset by the change. Thus he can exist on less than the European Christian, and yet not be satisfied with the best that money can buy. This is due to the fact that the Jew, unlike, let us say, the German peasant, has no fixed standard of life; he is always in a state of uncertain equilibrium, always pushing forward, never satisfied, whereas the Christian is usually content when he has arrived at the standard of his class.[xiii]

Alfred Nossig was another Jewish intellectual who underscored the positive eugenic effects that he thought Jewish survival in the European Diaspora inevitably entailed, whereby

the struggle for perpetual existence, which was a commandment for chosenness as well, engendered a selective breeding that is almost unequalled in human history. In the struggle for existence of the [Jewish] nation — convulsed as it has been to its core by fire and sword, by the severest economic and moral pressures, and by the constant allurement of desertion — only those individuals who were intellectually and spiritually the strongest and physically fittest survived and reproduced; those who, to the greatest degree, did not place the existence of the Jewish people in danger, but who possessed the art or skill of adaptation. And thus, up until today, the Jewish Volk is taken to be the most skilled at adaptation.[xiv]

An editorial in the Zionist newspaper Die Welt in 1912 entitled On the Jewish Racial Question likewise propagated the notion that advantageous Jewish racial traits were the fruits of the Jewish struggle for survival in the Diaspora, pointing out that “such [Jewish racial] traits are to be explained by the centuries-long difficult struggle for existence, together with the intimate cohesion of their original or primary living space. The Diaspora, in contrast, stimulated their mental agility and the other acknowledged Jewish traits.”[xv] Counterbalancing this allegedly superior intellect of the Jews, the neurologist Abraham Myerson noted their relatively higher susceptibility for neurosis and various other psychopathological conditions. For Myerson this tendency was likely the unfortunate, but unavoidable, flipside of “Jewish genius.” He writes:

It is idle, of course, to deny that the Jew has an innate character, different from that of other races, which perhaps predisposes him to psychoneuroses and other mental diseases. Unquestionably deeply emotional, clinging to belief and opinion with a capacity unparalleled in the history of the world, extremely active mentally, and in point of intellectual achievement to be compared only with the great races of the world, he is curiously passive in his resistance and curiously indomitable in his hold on life and success. Accused of materialism and yet furnishing proportionately more social reformers than any other race; accused of materialism and yet responsible for the two most ethical religions in the world; said to be dominated by love of gain, but the birthplace of the ethics that govern his accusers, the Western peoples; a race of contradictions, inconsistencies, strongly individualistic and extraordinary social, it may well be that such a soil would produce great failure as well as great success, psychoneurosis as well as genius.[xvi]

Abraham Myerson

For Myerson it was this Jewish intellectual superiority, rather than their ingroup-oriented morality and behavior, which was the primary cause of European anti-Semitism, insisting that “with the downfall of the Roman Empire the Jews and Arabs alone kept the torch of culture and science lit. In other words, the Jew was easily superior in these matters [science and culture] to his uncouth warrior-like hosts. This superiority brought about a jealousy, fear of the ability of the Jew; a fear that has never been stilled, though the culture of the Western races has reached a very high plane; a fear that yet actuates most of the hostile feelings of neighboring races.”[xvii] Ignaz Zollschan argued that Jewish endogamy benefited the whole world by preserving the superior Jewish racial traits he held to be an asset for all mankind:

Now let us … accept provisionally the hypothesis of Jewish racial superiority. From this fact, and from the additional consideration that, generally, it would have to be the common pursuit of all to reach the highest possible level of culture for the sake of the totality of human civilization, it would follow that it would be deemed that it would be deemed valuable to retain the integrity of the [Jewish] race.[xviii]

On the other hand, Zollschan, who was active in Zionist politics, readily acknowledged the existence of the “racial question” which, he believed, consisted of the way “the racial factor is significant for historical and cultural development.”[xix] He regarded “the Jewish racial problem, as that in which the Jewish Question culminates,” and as being inseparable from the “vast problem of race in general.”[xx] The Jewish Question was, for Zollschan, ultimately “a question of the principle of ‘inheritance,’ of ‘immutability’ of ‘specific racial traits.’”[xxi] He writes that

when it comes to the racial politics within Europe, we are dealing in essence with a struggle of Germans versus Romanen [that is French, Italians and Spanish] as well as the struggle of Germans against Slavs, and the struggle of all the above against Jews. This latter opposition, between Aryans and non-Aryans, manifests itself in the sphere of European foreign affairs as a political opposition against the “black” and “yellow” dangers outside [of the continent]. For Europe the classic representatives of the Aryan and non-Aryan indeed are the Teutons and the Jews.[xxii]

Zollschan posited that “insofar as one cannot escape from the general interest taken in the Jewish Question, the issue ought to be considered by posing the following questions:

  1. Are the Jews economically and culturally harmful, insignificant, or useful to the countries in which they reside?
  2. Is there a homogeneous Jewish race, and, if so, does it possess distinct traits that determine its historical trajectory for all eternity?”[xxiii]

A century on, these questions remain as pertinent as ever. One Jewish trait which the essays and articles in Jews and Race consistently evince is hyper-ethnocentrism, as reflected in the tendency for Jewish intellectual activity to become enmeshed with Jewish ethno-political activism. This trait continues to distort Jewish contributions to the social sciences. Another conspicuous trait is hypocrisy. One increasingly prominent example with this trait is how, with population genetic studies confirming that Jews comprise a distinct genetic community, Jewish intellectuals and activists have engaged in a double game where racialist thinking is tacitly permitted as a means of enhancing Jewish group cohesion, while White people who invoke the same racialist arguments continue to be pathologized. As Kevin MacDonald points out: “Jews will continue to attempt to have their cake and eat it too on the issue of concern for genetic continuity as they have on all the other issues related to multiculturalism and Israel: Support for massive non-White immigration and opposition to White identity and interests in America and other Western societies while supporting an ethnonationalist, apartheid state in Israel and taking steps to ensure Jewish genetic continuity in the Diaspora.”

In response to the de-racializing anti-White ideologies which currently hold White people in a racial death grip, we need to find new ways to invoke “blood logic” as a way of defining and maintaining White group identity. Recent population genetic and human biodiversity studies have good potential, properly used, to rekindle the racial feeling of our people and thereby foster White ethnocentrism and group cohesion. If White Nationalism is to ultimately succeed in any meaningful way, we must reclaim the elevated racial self-conception and pride that was normative for White people in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Of course, breaking the Judeo-Marxist media monopoly will be an essential prerequisite to this achievement.


Auerbach, E. (1907) ‘The Jewish Racial Question,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 207-218.

Fishberg, M. (1911) ‘Assimilation versus Zionism: Except from Jews, Race and Environment,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 297-302.

Fishberg, M. (1911) ‘Preface from Jews, Race and Environment,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 60-64.

Fishberg, M. (1913) ‘Intermarriage between Jews and Christians,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 237-241.

Meyerson, A. (1920) ‘The “Nervousness” of the Jew,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 175-183.

Nossig, A. (1905) ‘The Chosenness of the Jews in the Light of Biology,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 259-267.

Ruppin, A. (1913) ‘Successes of the Jews in Capitalistic Enterprise,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. pp. 201-204.

Unsigned editorial from Die Welt (1912) ‘On the Jewish Racial Question,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 306-310.

Unsigned editorial from Die Welt (1912) ‘The Racial Identity of the Jews,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 303-306.

Zollschan, I. (1909) ‘Foreword and Introduction from The Racial Problem, with Particular Attention Paid to the Theoretical Foundations of the Jewish Racial Question,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 255-285.

Zollschan, I. (1914) ‘The Significance of the Mixed Marriage,’ In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. 226-237.


[i] Auerbach, pp. 209-210

[ii] Fishberg 1913, p. 237

[iii] Die Welt p. 304

[iv] Fishberg 1911, p. 63

[v] Ibid. p. 61

[vi] Fishberg 1913, pp. 297-298

[vii] Fishberg 1911, pp. 61-62

[viii] Zollschan 1914, pp. 232-233

[ix] Ibid. p. 234

[x] Ibid. p. 236

[xi] Nossig, p. 265

[xii] Ruppin, p. 203

[xiii] Ibid. p. 204

[xiv] Nossig, p. 265

[xv] Unsigned editorial from Die Welt 1912, p. 309

[xvi] Myerson, p. 177

[xvii] Ibid. p. 177-178

[xviii] Zollschan 1909, p. 283

[xix] Ibid. p. 277

[xx] Ibid. p. 278

[xxi] Ibid. p. 282

[xxii] Ibid. p. 278

[xxiii] Ibid. p. 279

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

62 Comments to "Jews and Race: A Pre-Boasian Perspective, Part 2"

  1. JIm's Gravatar JIm
    February 15, 2012 - 9:19 pm | Permalink

    Great article.

  2. February 7, 2012 - 2:30 pm | Permalink


    Thanks for the clarification on Jews based in Jamaica bringing slaves to the British colonies in the West Indies, as well as Jews on Rhode Island running the trade bringing slaves to America. I also recall reading something that in the West Indies some Jews were also plantation owners themselves.

    In any event, it’s quite the subterfuge how Jews perpetuate the myth that ‘whites’ were the ones who ‘brought the slaves over’, and glossing over who these ‘whites’ were. Hoffman has done impeccable research here on this issue, and I always wonder why TOO does not advertise his books on this site (at least I haven’t noticed any).

    The Jewish subterfuge goes even further when they put themselves into the ‘Caucasian’ or ‘White’ category on current census forms in order to downplay their numbers in the USA. Or so I’ve read. And actually, with the American Renaissance website, they claims to be in the interests of the White Race, yet Jews are not only welcomed, but I imagine they are running the show, because who, other than themselves, the immortal ‘Chosen Ones’, would be the more fascinated in pushing work done in the fields of ‘race realism’ and the entire IQ question and the Bell Curve (with Jews placed at the highest end). I could be out of line here, but Jews attaching themselves to a White Race website makes me suspicious.

    Getting back to Hoffman, if his impeccable research would be more widely advertised about who in fact the slave shippers and traders were, it would blow the lid off of this myth that it was the ‘bad white man’ who was responsible.

    I never saw that movie Amistad when it came out, but I imagine the captain and crew were all decidedly recognizable as ‘whites only’.

  3. anon's Gravatar anon
    February 7, 2012 - 10:54 am | Permalink

    “According to Michael Hoffman, for instance, it was the Jews who made money bringing African slaves back to Britian and the US.”

    He probably meant bringing slaves to the British colonies in the West Indies. Jews based in Jamaica ran the trade into British colonies in the same way as Jews on Rhode Island ran the trade bringing slaves to America. Obviously they didn’t run all the plantations, just buying and shipping the slaves from Africa to the final customer.

  4. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    February 7, 2012 - 6:38 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: I forgot for the moment that Tolkien also taught Anglo-Saxon for many years at Merton. I can’t recall offhand if he taught Middle English, too, but his editions and translations of the Pearl Poet’s poems (“Gawain and the Green Knight” et al.) have not been entirely superseded.

    As you may know, Al, Tolkien made a recording of excerpts from The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I have it on LP; I don’t know whether it’s been rereleased on CD. He read with a wonderfully full, growly kind of voice, rather Yorkshirish in its sound and accent—adopted specially for the occasion, I would guess.

  5. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    February 7, 2012 - 6:27 am | Permalink

    @Al Ross: I must say that I am having a hard time picturing the lighthearted Amis signing up for a course in Gothic languages and literature (Tolkien’s academic field). Unless, that is, he signed up after an extraordinarily bibulous night at the beginning of term. So much the better, then, for the lectures’ inaudibility!

  6. protorenaissance's Gravatar protorenaissance
    February 6, 2012 - 11:57 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: Zuckerberg&Moskovitz’s Facebook would probably shut us down as soon as we would start,seems to me.Besides-as You said- it is the Dark Side.What do you think of a form of a “Blog”.It has a build in format for comments?
    Ultimately, what we need is what few days ago Hadding Scott suggested- an Internet provider of our own.I don’t know anything about these matters,but I suspect there are people who visit this site and know a whole lot regarding setting up a sovereign network for communication.
    Good- at last we are facing right direction.Thank You for that.Let’s see if anyone else in this assembly would like to address the constructive planning and plotting and shaping a future.

  7. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    February 6, 2012 - 9:42 pm | Permalink

    I might suggest FACEBOOK, but that too seems to be a tool from the dark side. But gather we must.

    I think part of the problem is that it is so much more fun to discuss the problem and its source than to provide a workable solution. Another is that we have lost the art of assuming authority and leading the way. Looks to me like you have made a fine start in a different direction.

  8. protorenaissance's Gravatar protorenaissance
    February 6, 2012 - 9:22 pm | Permalink

    Alice Teller@
    Thank You,Dear for your endorsement of this rather most obvious of ideas.It is somewhat disheartening to realize how little interest it gathers.I confess it troubles me greatly.Is our mighty oak dead and cannot grow anew ,only talk about how the bastards killed it?
    Perhaps this site is not conceived as a place for constructive ideas but only as a scholarly dissections , historical perspectives and backward leading insights.If so, than where should we gather to collect our wits and cobble together forward looking movement? I don’t want to come across as a disgrunteled voice of a complainer,just a refreshing sound of morning trumpet: let’s go to work on OUR PROBLEM.

  9. Al Ross's Gravatar Al Ross
    February 6, 2012 - 6:30 pm | Permalink

    An interesting comment from Pierre de Craon regarding Oxonian teaching.

    The late Sir Kingsley Amis, while up at Oxford, sat through several lectures by JRR Tolkien whose delivery was described by KA as being”unintelligible and, thankfully, almost inaudible.”

  10. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    February 6, 2012 - 4:05 pm | Permalink

    @me: “. . . like reading about an alternative universe”; indeed it is.

    Sam Francis and Joe Sobran used to describe the United States as having endured a revolution within the forms: all the normative terms remained, but the norms they stood for had been transformed beyond recognition.

    Though the transformation was already well in train in the decade you allude to (the sixties), the fact remains, as you say, that one could still lay hands then upon materials that evinced a realistic skepticism (at the least) about Jewish motives, methods, and actions in all three of the contexts you name. Life is simpler now, of course, with all such analyses being put down to the “oldest hate.”

  11. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    February 6, 2012 - 11:52 am | Permalink

    Seconded! The intellectual background is important, but we must develop a route forward. Well said.

  12. me's Gravatar me
    February 6, 2012 - 11:24 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:
    I have not read “An Embarrassment of Riches” what an odd title for someone of his ilk to choose, eh? :)
    Citizens actually sounds interesting, but I just can’t trust most Jewish historians anymore, sad to say. I honestly would like to because they often have interesting ideas. But now I know all too well the underlying agenda that’s there 90% of the time, and often they don’t even know it.

    The extent to which history books have completely eliminated any indication of jewish wrong doing, anywhere, is astounding. It’s a more thorough job, I think, than the communist achieved in Russia.

    Reading Walsh’s book of Queen Isabel, or any number of non-Jewish sources about the Bolsheviks, or even a 1967 book (by an author whose name escapes me) about Edward I’s expulsion of Jews from England is like reading about an alternative universe.

  13. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    February 6, 2012 - 6:23 am | Permalink

    @me: I vividly recall seeing the lead review of Citizens in the New York Times Book Review well over twenty years ago, my friend, and I haven’t forgotten much of what it said. As it happens, someone I know found a like-new copy of the book for a buck in a thrift shop last summer and gave it to me. I have just begun reading it. Thus, the comments that follow derive from (1) my recollection of the review and (2) what I have picked up from the jacket copy and the first thirty or so pages of text (I have also done seem peeking farther ahead, too, when curiosity has been too persistent a temptation to resist).

    You asked, “did [Schama] highlight the jewish role in the revolution, or the distinctly anti-christian flavor of it?” What he highlights is a brilliant and quite original thesis, one that has in the years since publication been subject to thorough, mostly antagonistic criticism from people who never thought of it themselves (mind, I am not saying the critics are wrong; it’s just that you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of academic historians willing even to entertain an unorthodox analysis, no matter how grounded in fact it is). The core of Schama’s thesis is that the French revolutionaries were social and political reactionaries, not the “advanced,” concerned, and scientifically oriented reformers they styled themselves. According to him, the king and the aristocracy—the good ol’ ancien régime—were in the process of planning a wide-ranging reform of the French economy and society. He contends furthermore that there is little evidentiary support for the near-truism of the French nobility’s overriding contempt for the lives and welfare of peasants and other ordinary Frogs.

    The only area where Schama doesn’t depart radically from the received understanding is with regard to the Jacobins’ remarkable cruelty and bloodthirstiness. Yet even there, how many hundreds upon hundreds of historians have viewed these Marxists avant la lettre as being nothing but omelet chefs necessarily breaking eggs?

    I can no longer recall much about the big book that made Schama’s reputation—An Embarrassment of Riches, about the mercantile glory days of the Dutch republic—since I read it piecemeal while commuting over the course of a month, but what I principally recall is that he was very sound on the painting but less so on interpretation of Dutch history. (Having a dear [now departed] Dutch friend a phone call away, however, certainly helped me get a truer perspective on Dutch history while I read the book.) Have you read it? If so, what are your own recollections?

    Another friend, this one a Brit, had Schama as a history tutor at Oxford back in the seventies. He describes S. as depressingly brilliant in class; everyone felt that matching his wit and erudition was an impossibility. Not the best imaginable sort of teacher, eh?

    Seeing his grossly self-indulgent behavior on that art history series on PBS a year or two back has soured me on him permanently, I must say. I don’t recall anything near so grotesquely Christophobic in the big Dutch book, however. He seems to be a more or less recent arrival in the land of Judaic triumphalism and bigotry.

  14. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 6, 2012 - 12:13 am | Permalink
  15. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 6, 2012 - 12:12 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: The Byron Jost documentary was never finished, sadly. The speakers I cannot find after searching, maybe KM can shed some light here?
    If you’ve not seen Jost’s Line in the Sand, here it is. Recommended.

  16. protorenaissance's Gravatar protorenaissance
    February 5, 2012 - 11:19 pm | Permalink

    I have noticed that every article creates a flurry of very articulate,sometimes brilliant,insightful comments. By the natural law of such commentaries they quickly go into dozen of digressions and spurn others to react and it goes on .Because the most active posters come to Occidental Observer to show how very knowledgeable they are on Jews or NSDAP they parade they favorite horses back and forth, on and on.
    I suggest that some of us or perhaps the whole movement would benefit from a window in a form of a permanent one topic of constructive ideas, positive initiatives or actions that would allow those who have them or would be interested in knowing them to discuss them and shape them .To deepen our knowledge about our enemies is no doubt important but at some point it start to look like we in some absurd,a rebours way we worship them, we can’t think past daily dissection of the minutia of their proceedings..
    I strongly believe we need to stand up and march forward; we need to dedicate most of our attention and energy to building. Historical analysis of NSDAP or history of eugenics is certainly of some passing interest but any more than a minute spent on that is masturbatory.
    So- please -let’s open a little window on the home page with some self-explanatory title and there we could post and find constructive ideas .After,say every 100 postings it would go to Part 2 and so on.
    I don’t want to die knowing whether all SA were pederasts or only some.
    Let’s think sharply about what to do!

  17. Leo Braun's Gravatar Leo Braun
    February 5, 2012 - 8:56 pm | Permalink

    @Elias Auerbach: “The Jewish human material that we are analyzing from an anthropological viewpoint and that is the foundation of the Jewish race in the progressive movement of history, will consequently have altered very little and remains a homogeneous mass”!

    • Blood was, and still is, sacred to the God of Israel. When the Israelites were kept in the wilderness for forty years (a biblical generation), the imposed isolation meant to cleanse their blood. Because after many years of intermarriages with A+ and B+ blood types, their once “pure bloodline” was becoming corrupt. So, originally “clean breed” of people were instructed to marry only within the other Israelite tribes. Thus preventing crosspollination of their bloodline by producing only RH ‘O’ negative blood children.

    In return, Israelites were promised a land, given eventually after long quarantine, endured in the wilderness. But only the younger generations were allowed to enter the promised land — those under the age of twenty who were born in the wilderness with both RH ‘O’ negative blood Israelite parents.

    Before young Israelites were set free to go down to the promise land, they were instructed not to marry outside their own tribes. But eventually scattered in all directions the Israelites married other than Israelite spouses. Thus RH positive factor in all types of blood soon took over.

    Some 85% of humans these days are RH positive as amid worldwide population remained 15% RH negative blood descendants of the earlier species. No wonder for birth complications and frequent child afflictions. Because, once coming in contact with the foetal/baby’s blood, pregnant mother’s organism of the RH negative blood will produce antibodies.

    Geared up to eliminate her positive blooded baby in the womb by targeting red blood cells. Thus depriving baby of oxygen, since her body fights the Rhesus Factor as a foreign element. At the time when RH positive blood mother’s organism does not reject the (rhesus free) RH negative blood baby, she is carrying.

  18. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    February 5, 2012 - 3:00 pm | Permalink

    The interesting thing is that if one agrees to the standards of political correctness and is familiar with the at times shocking teachings of Judaism, then one who is anti-racist must also be anti-Semitic.

  19. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    February 5, 2012 - 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Lew Rockwell And The Strange Death (Or At Least Suspended Animation) Of Paleolibertarianism
    By Arthur Pendleton on May 14, 2008 at 12:00am

    The biggest controversy of Ron Paul’s presidential race was the release of old excerpts from The Ron Paul Letter. During Paul’s congressional races, he had been attacked occasionally for RPL pieces about black crime rates and political attitudes, and he had defended them. But now James Kirchick of The New Republic managed to go through the entire archives and find politically incorrect statements about gay rights, black crime, South Africa, and Martin Luther King Jr.

    Paul caved in a sadly conventional manner (in contrast to Obama when the MSM finally reported the news of his ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright). He denied he wrote or even knew the articles existed in his own newsletter. He denounced them on no uncertain terms, groveling about how much he loved Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr, and how he thought the criminal justice system is racist.

    Those in the know claimed former Paul chief of staff and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute Lew Rockwell was the author of the letters. Rockwell has vigorously denied it. And various writers on his heavily-trafficked [LRC] denounced all the “racism” in the Paul letters.

    But regardless of whether or not Rockwell actually wrote the offending articles, the fact is that he was once willing to breach all the taboos that the newsletter violated. Unfortunately, however, in the last few years Rockwell and his circle have come full circle and embraced much of the leftist agenda that they once bemoaned.

    Rockwell’s site has a joo webmaster, Eric Garris, whose mother was a card-carrying member of The Party.

  20. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    February 5, 2012 - 2:26 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Make that “H. L. Mencken.”

  21. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    February 5, 2012 - 2:22 pm | Permalink

    “The Jewish theory that the Goyim envy the superior ability of Jews is not borne out by the facts. Most Goyim, in fact, deny that the Jew is superior, and point in evidence to his failure to take the first prizes: he has to be content with the seconds. No Jewish composer has ever come within miles of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms; no Jew has ever challenged the top-flight painters of the world and no Jewish scientist has ever equaled Newton, Darwin, Pasteur or Mendel. In the latter bracket such apparent exceptions as Ehrlich, Freud and Einstein are only apparent. Freud was nine-tenths quack, and there is sound reason for believing that even Einstein will not hold up: in the long run his curved space may be classed with the psychosomatic bumps of Gall and Spurzheim. But whether this inferiority of the Jew is real or only a delusion, it must be manifest that it is generally accepted. The Goy does not, in fact, believe that the Jew is better than the non-Jew; the most he will admit is that the Jew is smarter at achieving worldly success. But this he ascribes to sharp practices, not to superior abilities.”

    — H. L. Menchen

  22. me's Gravatar me
    February 5, 2012 - 2:00 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: sadly you are correct peter hitchens had such an article

    Sooner or later, as in every other era of human history, there will be a revulsion against this licence, a desire to stop the waste, cruelty and misery which these things bring, especially to children.
    Where will that revulsion come from? In the 18th and 19th Centuries it came from Christianity and the mighty but forgotten Temperance movements which reacted against the squalor and misery of Hogarth’s Gin Lane, and whose effects we still just feel.
    But Christianity shows little sign of doing the job a second time. Its leaders are more concerned about foreign conflict than about domestic misery, and more interested in the sexual tastes of bishops than in trying to regulate the confused sex lives of Britain’s young.

  23. me's Gravatar me
    February 5, 2012 - 1:45 pm | Permalink

    @Bluerose: he was one of my heroes too.. and made me anti-christian for awhile – he blamed the burning of the library of alexandria on christians (a bold faced lie) and claimed it set back science 400 years – another lie – he downplayed or lied about the deep religious committment of Kepler and newton ignored the roots of the scientific method in christian theology (because there was a rational god creator there had to be a ‘system ‘ behind things – other peoples, even the greeks, hardly bothered to investigate- but even religious orders we think unscientific – like the Fransicans – sought to find the truth in nature and thus would observe and experiment.

    also if you listen to his rhetoric – it is distinctly making science a religion (as dangerous in my opinion as making religion a science. “The comos is all that was and all that will ever be”

    and do you notice at the end of the series the buddish/hindu views are seen as more realistic and harmonious?

    Sagan was a classic culture of critique anti-western bigot…

  24. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    February 5, 2012 - 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Indeed! One of my fears is that as society disintegrates and chaos ensues, large groups will turn to religion. At the rate we are going now, the only contender standing will be Islam.

  25. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    February 5, 2012 - 12:45 pm | Permalink

    Another great link. Does anyone know who the scholars other than Dr. MacDonald are? Thanks.

  26. February 5, 2012 - 12:03 pm | Permalink


    That is an interesting video with Kevin MacDonald, who makes the very insightful comment about Jewish intellectual movements always centering around a charismatic Jewish man. In this case Freud.

    One movie that does a nice job of countering Freudian analysis is the simple movie made in 1947 called ‘Miracle on 34th Street’ with Maureen O’Hara, Natalie Wood and Edmund Gwenn. Here Kris Kringle goes up against Macy’s store psychologist who makes a special case of a naive employee named Alfred, by filling him with complexes and telling him he ‘hated his father’, even though the boy never thought so.

    Kringle taking a cane to this psychiatrist with a smart rap on the head, and the psychiatrist feigning being made unconscious, not only forwards the plot, but exposed Freudian analysis as a false, neurosis-inducing hocus pocus and brain-twisting.

    A good movie to have in one’s video library for the kids.

  27. February 5, 2012 - 9:33 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller

    The Jewish question aside for the moment, I came across a link to this Daily Mail short article with pictures. I can’t express what repulsion and obscenity these images give me in a once lovely Great Britain, in this case London — the Muslims in England. As you seem to love England as I do, I thought you’d be interested (and others here) in seeing this:

    The Mecca of the city: In a London street, the faithful find a way to pray as their mosque overflows

    Read more:

  28. February 5, 2012 - 9:25 am | Permalink


    in retrospect as with Carl Sagan – its extraordinary to see how much they blatantly lied and poisoned the minds of young people

    How do you figure about Carl Sagan? He was always one of my heroes.

    A Jewish professor originally from Russia once told me he had often been invited to dine at Sagan’s home, and that Sagan always set an elegant table. The Russian professor appreciated the idea of an elegant table, as did I. I found the insight into Sagan quite charming that he loved an elegant table.

  29. February 5, 2012 - 9:18 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    He is the self-proclaimed British Historian. He wrote and starred in the 15 part BBC History of Britain. No Anglo-Saxon reticence there.

    Yes, I remember awhile back vaguely reading something about Schama starring in the BBC History of Britain. I didn’t watch that series at the time.

    I suspect Schama is one of those conservative Jews who hold conservative values. But putting Schama — a professor of history — in the starring role is beyond belief as far as CHUTZPAH goes. If he were in fact a principled man he would have insisted an Anglo-Saxon be given the role.

    Maybe that’s why I never watched the series, after reading Schama had the lead role and wrote the series.

  30. Farnham O'Reilly's Gravatar Farnham O'Reilly
    February 5, 2012 - 9:15 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Right you are. The topic just gave a good spin-off onto the question of religion.

  31. February 5, 2012 - 9:07 am | Permalink


    No, Schama did not zero in on who was Jewish amongst the French revolutionary leaders. It stands to reason he would not, wouldn’t it? After all. the theme of the book is the French Revolution, so he has the perfect cover for diverting attention away from any Jewish involvement in it, and remain ‘strictly objective’. Your point is well taken, and goes to show that if one does not know the history of the Bolsheviks, the Leninists, Stalinists, Socialists, and Communists in Russia, one certainly would never even think of questioning the Jewish influence behind the French Revolution.

    I suppose one would have to do in-depth research on all the characters that were among the uprising to see who was Jewish among them. An amazon reader made gave this insight into the book: “The speeches of Saint-Just and Marat could have just as easily been uttered by Lenin.”

    The Jacobin Club, the nest of the revolutionaries, had thousands of chapters throughout France, with a membership estimated at 420,000 and later became notorious for its implementation of the Reign of Terror. I will bet one would find a number of Jewish involvement in it. How could one not? I also believe Freemasonry was a driving force to this revolution. Either Freemasonry had always been a cover for Marxist/Communist/Socialist ideas, or it was simply infiltrated by same and taken over.

    Yes, I think Schama did get into the anti-Catholic flavor of it. I don’t remember what he wrote entirely, but he could hardly have avoided including the mass killings of priests and nuns and the burning down of churches and monasteries. Remember, Schama is noted for his ‘objectivity’, so he would have to include these kinds of things, giving a horrific understanding of how brutal these revolutionaries were, and their anti-Catholic hatreds. The little I read of the thick book, the more horrified I was.

    I certainly don’t mean to defend Schama. But I think he did trace the Leftist ideas behind the revolution, but simply did not play up what religion the Left adhered to. I imagine this is why one gets misinformed of the entire truth by means of deflection techniques. When histor is pigeon-holed into little non-related segments, like we are taught, one cannot trace Jewish involvement anywhere in anything in creating havoc and destroying Western cultures and civilizations.

  32. me's Gravatar me
    February 5, 2012 - 8:19 am | Permalink


    A Trad Catholic email list, for instance, recommended to me the book ‘Citizens’ written by Schama.

    but for example, did he highlight the jewish role in the revolution, or the distinctly anti-christian flavor of it?

  33. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 5, 2012 - 7:02 am | Permalink
    Minority Rule: The Rise of Political Correctness. Kevin MacDonald and others on Boas and Freud. Great viewing.

  34. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    February 5, 2012 - 2:13 am | Permalink

    I love Downton Abbey. So far .
    Viewers do need to pay close attention to the film as Mr. Fellowe has developed story lines for every character and the scenes go from the drama of one life to the other fairly rapidly.

    Back to the Jewish race. If Jews are not a race what are they? They certainly are not like anybody else. They are a pestilence. It’s terrible that civilization is afflicted with them. Is it an evolutionary process that demands we either rise above the treachery of this species or become extinct?

    The Jews try to look like the host people. Not because they love us, but because they wish to avoid detection. Can’t you see how they must have pretended to be Romans and Greeks and Egyptians, etc?
    Jews would not be a very successful parasite if they were not dishonest and skilled in deception. And dangerous. That is why so many whites fear the Jews. Jews fear detection. That is also why Jews see every white person as a threat. They might get his cover blown! They built a defense against that by resorting to smear campaigns. One wonders how Rep. Ron Paul gets away with his stand on the Federal Reserve Bank and opposition to Israel’s desire for a war with Iran. Except Dr. Paul never mentions the word “Jew,” does he?
    Perhaps, we should think about developing a program for the purpose of educating the masses on how to detect the “human” parasite. The majority of people know what parasites are, but they haven’t thought about a human parasite. It could be called The Instruction Manual for the Moral training of young minds in dealing with the Deceptions of a Parasite. Or something like that.
    We are aware Jews have the power of money and media, but we fail to realize that their real power comes from lies. Jews could do nothing without a well developed system of lies.. What good would the control of money and media power be to the Jews if lies had no power?
    Every Jews seems to be acquainted with how the formula works. It’s part of their education. Not only have they familiarized themselves with the formula, but they know what is expected of them. That’s probably why Jews seem intelligent. We could do something like that. For example, if you hand me the script of a specific formula and told me to learn it from cover to cover I would know a lot more about what to do in our defense.

  35. February 4, 2012 - 11:47 pm | Permalink


    Bear in mind, the words Jewish ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity’ themselves, I am using in an Objective sense. The Diaspora Jews when they attached themselves to host countries really didn’t have a particularly vested patriotic interest in the host country. The Jewish interest lay in prospering themselves and seeking out ways to do it.

    According to Michael Hoffman, for instance, it was the Jews who made money bringing African slaves back to Britian and the US. I have to admit though, I’ve not come across anything about black slaves in Britain (or England) actually being used as slaves, so I am not sure if they ever were, other than maybe servants, but if so I don’t think it was at all widespread. I was totally askance at the 2008 BBC series of ‘Little Dorrit’ where they had the maid named Tattycoram, who was maid to Pet Meagles, to be a black maid. This looked to me like a thoroughly repugnant politically correct changing of Dickens’ novel here. I don’t think Dickens every specified Tattycoram was black. But given the Jews were involved in the black slave trade, and ships went to England, I cannot be sure, but only sure enough to know Dickens never intended Tattycoram to be black.

  36. February 4, 2012 - 11:24 pm | Permalink


    The best theory I’ve read about the enigma of the Jews says that the Jews were basically a ‘nomadic tribe’ for 2,000 years, after the loss of their 2nd temple. Since then they became wanderers and making their homes in other nations.

    This situation had a ‘strangers in strange lands’ effect. But on the reverse side, this situation afforded them extreme objectivity in looking at the host country. A Trad Catholic email list, for instance, recommended to me the book ‘Citizens’ written by Schama. They said even though he is Jewish, his book was the most objective in analyzing the French Revolution. Indeed, Schama’s handling of the Vendee uprising against the revolutionaries was thrilling, and as I was reading it I began to have hope that the Vendees had prevailed, but of course they did not — due to exhaustion and the forces rallied against them. I didn’t finish the book unfortunately, as it’s a very thick book, and I was highlighting practically everything I read, and anyway I had other books to read.

    So, I think the Jews are and have been in the unique situation of having the most objectivity, and so come off writing highly-acclaimed historical books, and unfortunately this objectivity allows them to also see more clearly whatever the faults of host countries (and if not enough, just make up faults), faults (real or imaginary) that are kept at a subconscious level by the members of the host country itself .

    This situation of being truly objective is, I think, not a common thing by itself. All sides, Left and Right, say ‘yes we are objective’, but it’s obvious neither truly are and both have agendas.

    In other words the objectivity of the Diaspora Jews down through the centuries allows them to bring out the ‘skeletons in the closets’ of the host country, which then goes on to allow them to preach about the host country’s ‘sins’, which then puts White Europeans and their civilizations and governments in the predicament as being as ‘deer caught in the headlights’, not knowing what to do or how to even make a defensive response.

    While all this is going on, the Jews promote multiculturalism and whatever changes they’d like to see made, while of course targeting positions of power and basically taking over.

  37. me's Gravatar me
    February 4, 2012 - 9:05 pm | Permalink

    @Bluerose: Schama – his seething hostility towards western civilization is extraordinary – everything is measured by how jews were treated. He’s a case of the ‘culture of critique;
    When i was younger I read some of his history books and now, in retrospect as with Carl Sagan – its extraordinary to see how much they blatantly lied and poisoned the minds of young people

    I sometimes wonder.. do they consciously know what they are doing. or is it self deceit?

  38. me's Gravatar me
    February 4, 2012 - 9:00 pm | Permalink

    @pessimist: literature of note,
    nonsense. the psalms are considered some of the most beautiful poetry ever written.

  39. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    February 4, 2012 - 8:40 pm | Permalink

    It is said that when the Romans destroyed the temple, they took away enough gold to devalue the price in the entire Empire. Isn’t it interesting that the one thing that is never questioned in any time period is Jewish wealth?

  40. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    February 4, 2012 - 8:37 pm | Permalink

    Of course, tastes vary. But the idea of them charging us with necrophilia and a lack of originality was too much to allow to pass.

    He is the self-proclaimed British Historian. He wrote and starred in the 15 part BBC History of Britain. No Anglo-Saxon reticence there.

  41. pessimist's Gravatar pessimist
    February 4, 2012 - 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Jews are not responsible at all for post Renaissance Western Civilization. One need only to look at ancient Israel. It never had any real accomplishments at all, at least compared to Babylon, Persia, Egypt and Phoenicia. Let alone in later periods when Greece and Rome were ascendant.

    And no, a self-perpetuating priesthood operating a extortion racket isn’t accomplishment, it’s a embarrassment.

    They never developed any artwork or literature of note, their architecture, what there was of it, was all done by imported Greek, Roman and Phoenecian workers. The place was a cultural wasteland that only a Attila could like.

    Through the Roman period they were nothing but a bunch of violent xenophobes who made the Goths and Vandals of Rome’s late period look civilized by comparison.

  42. February 4, 2012 - 6:58 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    I watched about 1/2 hour of Downtown Abbey, then read in full the Schama link you posted. He gave one or two good criticisms (stock characters — too many of them for me to identify with; cliches — I don’t know what cliches he means, but I found the unending dialogue too much to follow; and yes, as with British upper classes there is a tad bit of snobbery, but this doesn’t bother me too much).

    But Schama’s calling the series ‘cultural necrophila’, he needs to look at the history of his own race/religion/ethnicity. The Judaics are veritable psychic vampires in a bad way, feeding off of host countries.

    All this said, the creator of the series, Julian Fellowe, gave a good comeback:

    “The real problem is with people who are insecure socially, and they think to show how smart they are by picking holes in the programme to promote their own poshness and to show that their knowledge is greater than your knowledge,” he added.

    And lastly I would like to know WHO at the BBC had the idea of asking a Jew for his cultural critique in the first place? I am sure there are non-Jew professors of history, maybe even a gentile British one would have been more appropriate.

    Frankly, Schama should have his teeth kicked in and thrown down a well and forgotten. He and his opinion should never have been allowed to kick off a ‘firestorm’.

  43. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    February 4, 2012 - 6:40 pm | Permalink

    @Farnham O’Reilly:

    I did not refer to religion, only pointed out Jews are a subgroup of the Semitic race.

  44. Farnham O'Reilly's Gravatar Farnham O'Reilly
    February 4, 2012 - 4:58 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: I don’t know just how ‘Semitic’ the Jews are, but I never cared for the term ‘anti-Semitic’ as there are a lot of very good people in the true Semitic races who are not Jewish and would resent being considered as such.

    Regardless of the Jews being Semitic, partially Semitic, Turco-Ugric or whatever, they are definitiely a race. One is not predisposed to such maladies as Tay Sachs disease because of his religion. Or, as Lincoln Rockwell put it rather indelicately, “You don’t get a big nose by going to church.”

  45. February 4, 2012 - 4:44 pm | Permalink


    So the greedy, status-seeking characteristics of the Jew are to be considered a virtue?

    It isn’t even really status per se. It’s a particular fixation on material gain.

    Aristotle, long before Maslow, put forth what amounts to a hierarchy of needs, corresponding to three “souls,” the nutritive, perceptive, and rational souls, which exist in every person. They correspond to autonomic function, sensation, and thinking, and the rational soul is considered the highest part of the human being. The need for nutrition is essentially the same as the need for money. Once that’s satisfied then you can advance through and past aesthetic needs toward development of the mind. In this Aristotelian framework, material gain is only a necessity for satisfying higher needs.

    The Jews have this hierarchy completely reversed. For them, mind and aesthetic pleasures exist so that they can make money.

    So, I would say that it’s not that the non-Jew reaches a certain level of development and stops. Rather our development moves into other phases that we consider higher, after the basic needs are secured.

    The Jews as a people act as like somebody that has lived through a famine and ever after could never get enough food. They have that unbalanced focus on a basic need.

    Of course Jews do not all exhibit this inverted value-system with equal force.

  46. February 4, 2012 - 3:43 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    but I suspect the men will tell us that it has something to do with genuine skill and accomplishment within a set of defined rules.

    lolll I didn’t see that one coming, and you’re quite right. That’s the usual refrain.

    A few days back you mentioned the program Downtown Abbey. I love Masterpiece Theatre, but for some reason the description of DA didn’t interest me. However after you mentioned it, I did take a look — for about 10 minutes. I’m afraid I have to say, truthfully, that it bored me. Maybe because I never watched it from the beginning, so I didn’t know the plot. But it did not seem up to the usual BBC productions somehow, of 19th Century England. I could maybe give it another look.

    Though I understand what you’re saying. Nothing beats Upstairs, Downstairs when it came to portraying women of intelligence, honor and grace without benefit of liberation.

  47. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    February 4, 2012 - 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Jews are a subgroup of the Semitic race.

  48. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    February 4, 2012 - 10:14 am | Permalink

    Ahh, I don’t pretend to get the football thing, but I suspect the men will tell us that it has something to do with genuine skill and accomplishment within a set of defined rules.

    The entire TV situation is, in my mind, best illustrated by the hysterical reaction to Downton Abbey. Wildly popular in America, it portrays women, of intelligence, honor and grace without benefit of liberation. Everyone, from the Countess Dowager to the lowest kitchen maid, struggles with issues of honor and the moral course of action.
    Simon Schama is the son who of Eastern European Jews who found shelter in England. He was awarded a scholarships to the best schools in England and has repaid the favor by sneering at Brits ever since. He called Downton Abbey ‘ Cultural necrophilia’!

    Not the endless renditions of the holocaust, but a nostalgic look back at a white, nominally Christian world, in which none of the women wear G-strings. Heaven help us!

  49. omop's Gravatar omop
    February 4, 2012 - 10:00 am | Permalink

    An interesting 8 minutes or so. As Pinochio expounded in the end…” if you consider yourself better and more special than other humans who are not Jewish YOU ARE A RACIST…if you act as a RACE then YOU are a race.

    The $66 billion dollar question is why do the non-jews accept the Jews as a RACE.

  50. February 4, 2012 - 9:31 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    Yes, you’re right. I always forget to include the Orthodox Church along with Roman Catholic as bearers of Western, and of course Eastern, culture.

    With Bob, I just find him creative in how he phrases things. His videos are always about the lunacy of the US government and the American people, and though if no one has seen his videos before, they might find him interesting. In that video he ranted about these ‘reality shows’, and the newer one, about a Jersey Shore spin-off from the Kardashian reality show, and how people just seem to be mesmerized by these shows. I never watch them myself, but I’m amazed how many of these staged ‘reality’ programs there are. It’s also provoking how the mainstream media is in near hysteria over this Super Bowl thing. Staged reality for the masses, like a football game means something in the greater scheme of things.

  51. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    February 4, 2012 - 9:01 am | Permalink

    We must remember, that it was not only Rome, but also the Eastern Orthodox Church which held to our ancient heritage.

    As for the link you posted, I have no idea what he is ranting about, but I don’t think I see him as the font of truth and faith.

  52. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    February 4, 2012 - 2:17 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: I agree, Hedgerow.
    Jews are totally at odds with western culture, yet claim they are its greatness. Why did they choose to express all this greatness in gentile countries?
    They also claim they are “white,” yet oppose white people with every fiber of their being.

    It is obvious Jews see us as explicitly white, distinct from everybody else, since they know exactly who to pit others against.

    Jews call us cattle as if we are mindless herds, but they evidently see non-whites as idiots since they shamelessly use them to help get laws passed giving Jews money and power.
    Cunning foxes, the Jews. They always have goals other than what they present. Every campaign the Jews launch should be met with skepticism and a look into what they are really after. So far, they have turned out to be something other than that “pot of gold at the end of the rainbow” for the “poor.”
    Equal rights is supposed to be a biggie for non-whites. Indeed, they swallow it hook, line and sinker. In reality, equal rights is a ploy for Jewish power. Amazing, isn’t it how Jews zeroed in on white society and passed laws making it legal for them to take everything they can get their hands on?

    The Civil Rights Act was for the benefit of the Jews. One would have thought these ruthless nomads were drenched in pity for the rights of the “unwashed masses.” Not quite. Jews are interested in what is good for the Jews. They have about as much interest in the “fairness, equal rights, and justice” of Blacks, Indians, Mexicans, Asians and Muslims as a pack of dogs for a cat.

  53. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    February 3, 2012 - 11:18 pm | Permalink

    What is odd about Jews is their claiming they are responsible for European civilization while expressing distain for Europeans. They can be on all sides of a matter. Cognitive dissonance does not seem to disconcert them.

  54. February 3, 2012 - 7:24 pm | Permalink

    For Myerson it was this Jewish intellectual superiority, rather than their ingroup-oriented morality and behavior, which was the primary cause of European anti-Semitism, insisting that “with the downfall of the Roman Empire the Jews and Arabs alone kept the torch of culture and science lit.

    That’s certainly an arrogant belief for the Jews to have. Rome may have fallen, but unless I’m mistaken the Roman Catholic Church were still the culture-bearers of Western Civilization. As to science, it may have taken the Church a bit longer to warm up to Science, but today we have Roman priests with deep interest in the Sciences. I read that in the Ancient World, the Arabs, Christians and Jews freely exchanged philosophical and scientific ideas, like in the city of Alexandria. I seem to recall reading something that Christian monks and Arabs, later on, seemed to have an affinity with each other when it came to science and invention.

    What’s interesting with these TOO articles is that they afford deeper insight into the Jewish mindset, something the average non-Jew is not exposed to, and probably would have no interest in anyway, being engaged with reality shows about Kardashians and Jersey Shore spin-offs. As an aside, this guy Bob is pretty creative in the way he says things about the idiocy of the average person or the government: (He’s not white nationalist – doesn’t matter though because he ‘says it’ anyway about the state of society we live in)
    Jersey Shore spin-off

    God may have given them good advice in keeping themselves a separate nation, but I guess all cultures start out that way. So now it seems to the Jews have appointed themselves the Light of the World, too, even though their Yahweh repeatedly called them a stiff-necked people in the Old Testament. The Jews forget that ‘Light of the World’ no longer applies to them after Jesus Christ came on the scene, the One Who amazed the Pharisees, and Who threw the money-changers out of the temple:

    Matt. 23 [Douay-Rheims]

    [11] He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. [12] And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. [13] But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. [14] Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment. [15] Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

    The problem with the Messianic Jews is that they go so far as to Judaize Jesus Christ, insisting He be called ‘yashua’. Once again, these Jews are seeing to it that the Jews, as a people, remain on top.

  55. George's Gravatar George
    February 3, 2012 - 6:14 pm | Permalink

    “the Jew, unlike, let us say, the German peasant, has no fixed standard of life; he is always in a state of uncertain equilibrium, always pushing forward, never satisfied, whereas the Christian is usually content when he has arrived at the standard of his class.[xiii]”
    So the greedy, status-seeking characteristics of the Jew are to be considered a virtue? Additionally, why the juxtaposition of “Jew-Christian”? Christianity is merely a religion and has nothing to do with race or genetics whereas the Jew is (or at least they consider themselves to be) a separate and distinct race. For the Jew, his religion (if he even practices it) is only another means of identifying with his race. For the Jew his race IS his religion, as well as his “nation”.
    Fishberg’s statement that;
    “This apprehension is confirmed by the Jewish nationalists, who look for repatriation to Palestine, or some other territory, thus corroborating the opinion that they are aliens in Europe, encamped for the time being, and waiting for an opportunity to retreat to their natural home in Asia.[vii]” is pure nonsense. Jews may wish to use Israel (Palestine) as a place to which to flee when the next pogrom arrives, or as a summer home, or even as a permanent residence after having committed various crimes or swindles in gentile lands, but a yearning for return to the home of their forefathers (which for Ashkenazis it is not) is simply a ruse.

  56. Peter's Gravatar Peter
    February 3, 2012 - 5:51 pm | Permalink

    It certainly isn’t wise to keep referring to Jews as “persecuted”. You cannot persecute an invading army. Invading armies can only be resisted. As for the expropriations they suffered, and about which they still complain so much, the Genoese banking community that took their place within the Spanish empire twice suffered exactly the same treatment from the Spanish government, but we hear no weeping and wailing about that.

  57. anon's Gravatar anon
    February 3, 2012 - 5:05 pm | Permalink

    You can see where NSDAP got their ideas from.

    “We do not find it important for the remnants of Israel, or of those around them, that Jewry should commit race suicide.”

    But everyone else should – according to them.

    “In the struggle for existence of the [Jewish] nation — convulsed as it has been to its core by fire and sword, by the severest economic and moral pressures”

    I can’t get over how blatant this lie is. Jews held the monopoly on banking, money-lending, gold, silver, diamond and slave trading for 99% of their history. For 99% of their history they were the richest 1% using their banking monopoly to suck the blood out of the local economy through debasing the local currency . They were persecuted in short spasms when they got too greedy and destroyed the local economy – like now – and were forcibly expelled by the people whose economy they’d ruined.

    The reason they always got so rich was their extreme ethno-centrism and nepotism. Telling themselves these lies about their constant persecution is the second main driver (the first being the inbreeding) that creates their extreme ethno-centrism.

    Simply put – how does being given the legal monopoly on banking and money-lending count as being persecuted? Being chased out of a terriotory after destroying the local economy through debasing the currency isn’t persecution it’s self-defense.

  58. mari's Gravatar mari
    February 3, 2012 - 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Luke, would you please explain about Obama’s Jewish blood? Most of the communist girls who married and had children with blacks to raise the kids for the cause were Jewish. Lani Guanier is a good example.

    She was a possible Hitlery Clinton candidate for attorney general. She had written many articles advocating “race weighted voting” One black would have say 5 votes, a hispanic 4 votes, an asian 3 votes and Whites just one vote.

    That shot her down and the Clintons brought in Janet Reno.

    Attorney Lynnn Stewart is older. She was one of the 1930’s Jewish commie girls who married a black man and
    raised the kids to be radicals. She didn’t succeed. Her now middle aged kids are normal.

    Lynn Stewart was one of the radical attorneys who worked with the blind sheik in planning the world trade center She has been a radical attorney all her life, defending black terrorists. She was a partner with William Kunstler and Charles Garry.
    Obama was a product of a White commie girl black man breeding program that began in the 1920’s, as soon as Armand and Julius Hammer founded the CPUSA

    But Obama’s Mother was not Jewish. The Jewish commie girl and black man couple is so common that when I first heard about him I just assumed his Mother was a Jew.

    But she isn’t. Let us know about Obama’s Jewish blood. He has been created and made President by Jews with money, the media and ACORN SEIU and all the other Jewish organizations.

  59. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    February 3, 2012 - 11:25 am | Permalink

    Not being an intellectual certainly has its drawbacks. Ha
    I read what these great minds write, anyway.

    It’s ironic that Jews want Israel for the survival of the Jewish race, but work like beavers to deny us a white Ameica to preserve the white race.

  60. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    February 3, 2012 - 11:11 am | Permalink

    A much bigger, far more important question that needs to be asked is: Why in the world would anyone, especially a White European, want to intermarry with someone from this tribe and then produce children that will most certainly be whelmed by, and have their thinking and behavior dominated by, the jewish DNA that they will carry in their bodies?

    Exhibits for the prosecution: Tim Wise, Jon Stewart, literally every identified celebrity, including Obama – who has jewish DNA inside them, no matter how small that percentage is – is consumed with genocidal hatred for White European people.

    Lenin was what, one quarter jewish? Just look at the millions of White European Russians and Ukrainians he gleefully had tortured and murdered while he was alive.

    All race mixing is bad, but getting this hyper-virulent DNA inside you seems to transform you into a anti-white monster.

  61. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    February 3, 2012 - 10:44 am | Permalink

    A really great review by Sanderson. Hart’s book appears to be a very revealing and useful study of Jews, eugenics and race. It must surely confirm, to Hart’s chagrin, the thesis of David Duke’s book, Jewish Supremacism.
    Hart’s book looks quite likely to be a reference that will put to shame Richard Lynn’s recent statistical paean on the Jews.
    I suspect that much of the information in Hart’s work was also investigated by the various Third Reich Era institutes that studied Jewry, and is incorporated in their various period publications. It is also a shame that Hans F.K. Günther’s book Rassenkunde des Jüdischen Volkes has never been translated into English.

  62. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 3, 2012 - 7:03 am | Permalink

    “In this he is totally unlike the German Christian, for example, who is slow to change his vocation, but similar to the North American, who also changes his profession without the slightest hesitation.”

    I can’t see that Ruppin isn’t absolutely right on the dysgenic effects of state socialism. The above reflection is on the America of yore – small government, florid community and commercial environment, not today’s bloated welfare/warfare state with its crony capitalism.

Comments are closed.